ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2013
Optimization of acquisition and contrast injection protocol for C-arm CT imaging in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: initial experience in a swine model.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peri-procedural imaging for transcatheter mitral valve replacement.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2016Review
- Cardiovascular imaging 2013 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2014Review
- Editorial comment.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To determine the optimal C-arm computed tomography (CT) protocol for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in swine. In 6 swine, C-arm CT was performed using 5-s ungated acquisition during sinus rhythm with aortic root (Method 1) or peripheral (Method 2) injection, and during rapid ventricular pacing with root injection (Method 3). Additionally, 24-s ECG-gated acquisitions were performed during sinus rhythm with root (Method 4) or peripheral (Method 5) injection. Aortic root enhancement, presence of artifacts and contrast volumes were compared for all methods. Aortic root measurements were also compared between C-arm CT and multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT). The best C-arm CT image set was identified and used to predict optimal angiographic projection angles during TAVI; predictions were compared to those from MDCT. Methods 1, 3, 4, and 5 yielded sufficient root enhancement with mild or moderate artifacts and aortic annulus, sinotubular junction, and mid-ascending aorta diameters similar to MDCT. Ungated C-arm CT (Methods 1, 3) required less contrast than ECG-gated C-arm CT (Methods 4, 5). Method 3 was optimal yielding images with high attenuation, few artifacts (2.0), and root measurements similar to MDCT using minimal contrast (36 mL). Predicted angiographic projections from Method 3 were similar to MDCT. Ungated C-arm CT during rapid pacing with aortic root injection required minimal contrast, yielded high attenuation and few artifacts, and aortic root measurements and predicted angiographic planes similar to those from MDCT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22714548What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.